Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let me interrupt just for a second.

Madam Dawson has a couple of times told us that she can't speak about individual files. Many of the members have done a very good job of asking questions that have to do with her code and the act to get to those questions. I'm going to ask the member to please try to make the question about the act or the code rather than about a thing or a person.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Well, then, let me put it to you this way, Ms. Dawson. If an aerospace executive were in that position and were going to take leave to work in the Prime Minister's Office, would all of these details be up on the conflict of interest screen?

[Mary Dawson]

We'd certainly have mentioned whatever entity was the problem in the screen.

Here is an example. In my Raitt report, I have as one of my schedules a compliance measure that Lisa Raitt put in place, which you could look at any time. It mentions the Cement Association of Canada; it mentions the individuals.

They're not great big, long documents, usually. They only need to be a paragraph or two, but they mention where the problem is.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Okay. In this case, when you've identified where issues could be, or previous employment that the individual had, when you say you give advice on recusal, would you advise this aerospace industry former employee to, in fact, recuse himself from any issues that would have to do with the aerospace industry?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, if necessary, but generally the conflict of interest screen should make those situations not arise. If somehow somebody neglected to exercise the screen, then they should rush in and recuse themselves. So there are two mechanisms of achieving the same thing.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

In terms of giving advice, that's certainly something that you would do? You would advise individuals to recuse themselves from any files--

[Mary Dawson]

No. We wouldn't know about it. If a recusal situation came up, they have an obligation to recuse themselves and to tell us, under the act.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Okay.

Now, I know, obviously, the chair has mentioned that we're not going to talk about specific individuals and cases. Could the individuals who are being hired to work in the Prime Minister's Office choose to release information of their own accord? If it's information that you're privy to, and that you can't release, is that information that they could choose to release of their own accord?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, definitely. It's their privilege and I'd love to have them release stuff sometimes, particularly when we've not proceeded with an investigation, for example, and we'd like the reasons to be out. We're quite fulsome in our explanation to the individuals as to why. To date, people don't tend to release those letters, but I'd be perfectly happy if they did.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Just one more question about this former aerospace employee and his involvement with his employer for a determinate period of time. Do you believe that this practice is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the act?

[Mary Dawson]

Sorry, my colleague was whispering and I missed the thrust of that.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Okay. I'm going back to this aerospace industry executive who's now frozen his involvement with his employer for a certain period of time. Do you believe that this practice is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the act?

[Mary Dawson]

It depends on what they're talking about. There should be no situation where there's a conflict created. That's the guiding principle. There should be no business operational activity going on.

I've said this before in some of my previous reports. The objectives of the act--and there are five objectives--encourage experienced and competent people to seek and accept public office. I've said on other occasions that this may brush up against some of the onerous rules of divestment with which people have to comply.

So there's a balance; there's always a balance here. Certainly, there have been on occasion instances where people have not accepted public office because of the stringency of the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski for five minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of different questions here. The first is one that I had written your office about last year, and it concerned another member of Parliament. I asked your office to investigate an e-mail that went out from that member's parliamentary account relating to a fundraising activity. Your response to me was that this particular instance did not fall under your jurisdiction, but rather fell under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy.

Could you clarify, when you're using parliamentary resources, what does fall under your purview and what falls under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy? I think there's a lot of confusion among members. If they think that something has been done inappropriately, what should they write you about and what should they refer to the BOIE?

[Mary Dawson]

I'm actually happy you asked that question, because we've actually communicated with the Board of Internal Economy and have never had a response on those issues.

The pivotal section in the code is section 6, and it simply says:

Nothing in this Code affects the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons to determine the propriety of the use of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to Members for carrying out their parliamentary duties and functions.

So it's kind of saying “hands off” if the Board of Internal Economy has jurisdiction over the use of resources in the House. But, you know, we have no specific information from the Board of Internal Economy as to where they thinks their jurisdiction ends.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

In other words—I think it's quite clear, but just so that I am absolutely crystal clear about this—if any member used their parliamentary e-mail account to solicit funds from whomever, that wouldn't be an issue with you? You wouldn't be able to deal with that? It would have to be BOIE?

[Mary Dawson]

I'm not sure. I think there may be circumstances in which we should have a mandate, and it's something I'd love to sort out.

But no, I don't say that I have no jurisdiction, if there is an obvious conflict issue there. But if there is not an obvious conflict issue, certainly it's the Board of Internal Economy.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

All right. Thank you for that.

Let me ask you, how long have both the Conflict of Interest Act and the code been in effect?

[Mary Dawson]

The act has been in effect since July 9, 2007, when I started, and the code has been in effect since 2004.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Let me ask you a question. This is going back a little bit--to my Liberal colleagues, this isn't anything I'm trying to get overly partisan on--but back in the 1990s, Paul Martin was at the time finance minister and was still, I believe, and I stand to be corrected, an owner or at least operating director of Canada Steamship Lines. At that point in time, of course, he was as finance minister responsible for or heavily involved with tax regulation, tax rules, and the like, and there was a lot of controversy about his steamship line not being compelled to pay Canadian taxes because they were registered outside Canada.

If that situation occurred today, wherein there was a public office holder in that situation, would he or she be allowed to operate similarly to Mr. Martin back in the 1990s, or would the act prevent that person from having the same business interests?

[Mary Dawson]

I think, without being up to date on exactly what the situation was, the act would probably prevent it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

In other words, the act that was brought in a few years ago really has put a good safeguard process in place for activities such as that.

[Mary Dawson]

Right. The rule is that you can't engage in employment and you also can't manage or operate a business. As soon as you become a reporting public office holder—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, I have a point of order.

Yes.